Re: posix compliance test

Mouse <mouse%Rodents-Montreal.ORG@localhost> wrote:
|> You need GNU make.
|
|If you need tools beyond what POSIX calls for for a POSIX compliance
|test suite, I would say the test suite is cripplingly broken. In
|particular, if a POSIX-conforming make isn't good enough I have trouble
|taking the test suite seriously. (Not that it's my decision, of
|course.)
My guess was that it was a boring and disillusioning ergotherapy
for a beginners department. It hasn't seen work for many years,
too, when i can trust the web interface. I ran it out of interest
two days ago and got a ~660 KB log, yet am busy with multiple
reported bugs in stuff i maintain.
|Or is NetBSD's make not POSIX enough? Then I'd say NetBSD needs to fix
|that first.
They use pattern syntax, multiple targets with identical names
etc. At least the former seems to become part of the next revised
POSIX, but since i always used most-minimal make(1) syntax to
avoid any problems i am no real expert. At least the Makefile
manages to silently do nothing with NetBSD make. This could of
course and instead also show deep intellectual penetration of
cross-platform make(1) internals. Intel is on top of the hill.
--steffen

>> If we can't even compile the compliance tests, then it must be that
>> we're not compliant. :->
> You need GNU make.
If you need tools beyond what POSIX calls for for a POSIX compliance
test suite, I would say the test suite is cripplingly broken. In
particular, if a POSIX-conforming make isn't good enough I have trouble
taking the test suite seriously. (Not that it's my decision, of
course.)
Or is NetBSD's make not POSIX enough? Then I'd say NetBSD needs to fix
that first.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B